If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You will have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

[3.5] Making Invisible Spell less broken

Invisble spell from Cityscape is known to be pretty broken - +0 metamagic that can give you invisible Prismatic Spheres, blind anyone using true seeing with no save or allow you to gain permanent invisibility, which I don't think can even be dispelled.

But the feat itself is pretty cool, and I hate to just ban it, so how is this fix? Any problems? And what level adjustment should it carry?

Invisible Spell

Benefit:
You can modify a spell you cast so that it carries no visual manifestation. All other aspects of the spell, including range, area, targets, and damage remain the same. Note that this feat has no bearing on any components required to cast the enhanced spell, so the spellís source might still be apparent, depending on the situation, despite its effects being unseen. For example, a fireball cast by someone with this feat could be made invisible in the moment of its detonation, but everyone in the area would still feel the full effect (including the heat), and any flammable materials ignited by the explosion would still burn visibly with nonmagical fire. Creatures (not including summons, but including called creatures), nonmagical materials that the spell creates that are permanent (such as Wall of Iron but not Orb of Acid), or other permanent effects cannot be made invisible in this way. Those with detect magic, see invisibility, or true seeing spells or effects active at the time of casting will see whatever visual manifestations typically accompany the spell, but will also be able to see through such manifestations, manifestations do not obstruct line of sight. A spell modified using the Invisible Spell feat uses a spell slot +1 level higher.

Re: [3.5] Making Invisible Spell less broken

Originally Posted by Myou

Invisble spell from Cityscape is known to be pretty broken - +0 metamagic that can give you invisible Prismatic Spheres, blind anyone using true seeing with no save or allow you to gain permanent invisibility, which I don't think can even be dispelled.

Personally, I feel the intent is pretty obvious. The feat should not modify any lasting visible effect, magical or otherwise. Anything that lasts longer than the casting time is visible, be it damage, a magical wall or non-magical wall.

Re: [3.5] Making Invisible Spell less broken

Originally Posted by Myou

Invisble spell from Cityscape is known to be pretty broken - +0 metamagic that can give you invisible Prismatic Spheres, blind anyone using true seeing with no save or allow you to gain permanent invisibility, which I don't think can even be dispelled.

But the feat itself is pretty cool, and I hate to just ban it, so how is this fix? Any problems? And what level adjustment should it carry?

Invisible Spell

Benefit:
You can modify a spell you cast so that it carries no visual manifestation. All other aspects of the spell, including range, area, targets, and damage remain the same. Note that this feat has no bearing on any components required to cast the enhanced spell, so the spellís source might still be apparent, depending on the situation, despite its effects being unseen. For example, a fireball cast by someone with this feat could be made invisible in the moment of its detonation, but everyone in the area would still feel the full effect (including the heat), and any flammable materials ignited by the explosion would still burn visibly with nonmagical fire. Creatures or permanent effects cannot be made invisible in this way. Those with detect magic, see invisibility, or true seeing spells or effects active at the time of casting will see whatever visual manifestations typically accompany the spell, but will also be able to see through such manifestations Ė they do not obstruct line of sight. A spell modified using the Invisible Spell feat uses a spell slot +2 levels higher.

So, removing the visual manifestation of a spell is worth +2 spell level adjustment? Why in the hell? You've basically just nerfed the hell out of this feat, which wasn't all that broken on its own. It was another valid defense against true seeing and similar, and costs a feat slot, which is expense enough.

I can see it being +1 for certain applications - invisible obscuring mist, invisible invisibility... but +2? No. That's just borked and pointless. Look at other +2s: Empower Spell, Split Ray, Reach Spell... those are worth a +2 level adjustment, but removing the visual manifestation of a spell isn't. Why?

Adding 50% damage to a spell is always applicable. Firing off two rays for one spell is always applicable. Changing the range of a Personal spell is always applicable.

Making your spells only visible to things with see invisibility or true seeing is not always applicable. It's situational. It's fine as a +0, or a +1 if you really need to curb what you view as "broken uses". Anything else is ridiculous.

Now if you don't mind, I am somewhat preoccupied telling the laws of physics to shut up and sit down.
I cast irresistable phantasmal killeras a 4th level spell. No save, just die.

Re: [3.5] Making Invisible Spell less broken

Originally Posted by Grumman

Personally, I feel the intent is pretty obvious. The feat should not modify any lasting visible effect, magical or otherwise. Anything that lasts longer than the casting time is visible, be it damage, a magical wall or non-magical wall.

Certainly that was the intent, but doing that makes the spell sorely limited.

That makes me think of instantanious conjurations, maybe I need to reword the 'permanent effects' line somehow.

Re: [3.5] Making Invisible Spell less broken

It can't grant you invisibility. It can grant a summoned monster Invisibility (that can't be dispelled) but summoned creature can be.

I'm referring to True Resurrection, which creates a new body for the character.

Originally Posted by RelentlessImp

So, removing the visual manifestation of a spell is worth +2 spell level adjustment? Why in the hell? You've basically just nerfed the hell out of this feat, which wasn't all that broken on its own. It was another valid defense against true seeing and similar, and costs a feat slot, which is expense enough.

I can see it being +1 for certain applications - invisible obscuring mist, invisible invisibility... but +2? No. That's just borked and pointless. Look at other +2s: Empower Spell, Split Ray, Reach Spell... those are worth a +2 level adjustment, but removing the visual manifestation of a spell isn't. Why?

Adding 50% damage to a spell is always applicable. Firing off two rays for one spell is always applicable. Changing the range of a Personal spell is always applicable.

Making your spells only visible to things with see invisibility or true seeing is not always applicable. It's situational. It's fine as a +0, or a +1 if you really need to curb what you view as "broken uses". Anything else is ridiculous.

There isn't supposed to be a defence against True Seeing - that spell is itself defensive, and inflicting blindness with no save while you can still see is very broken.

An invisible Prismatic Wall is far better than an empowered spell of that level. Enemies won't even know it's there.

Re: [3.5] Making Invisible Spell less broken

There isn't supposed to be a defence against True Seeing - that spell is itself defensive, and inflicting blindness with no save while you can still see is very broken.

An invisible Prismatic Wall is far better than an empowered spell of that level. Enemies won't even know it's there.

Again, that's situational, not something that can be applied in 99.9% of situations that come up. Other +2s are usable in 99.9% of situations; Invisible Spell as a +2 comes up the very few rare times when it'd actually be an instant-win, or less than 0.1% of situations that require being solved without insta-gibbing/face-murdering/utterly destroying a target. Which, let's be honest, rarely comes up.

Before the change, you have a situation in which few people take Invisible Spell for using it creatively; after the change, you have a situation in which nobody takes invisible spell. It gets relegated to the ranks of the Dodge chain - nice, but not worth it save for meeting prerequisites. And it gets pushed even further back because no prestige class requires invisible spell.

As a +0, yes, it can be too powerful in specific situations. As a +1, it's not even on par with most other +1s (double duration, etc), much less +2s, both of which can useful all the time. So, a weak +1, or powerful +0. That's the only choice you have: between "Yeah, this looks fun" and "Ehh... it might come in handy" instead of "Yeah, this looks fun" and "What? No. Not worth a feat".

Now if you don't mind, I am somewhat preoccupied telling the laws of physics to shut up and sit down.
I cast irresistable phantasmal killeras a 4th level spell. No save, just die.

Re: [3.5] Making Invisible Spell less broken

Originally Posted by RelentlessImp

Again, that's situational, not something that can be applied in 99.9% of situations that come up. Other +2s are usable in 99.9% of situations; Invisible Spell as a +2 comes up the very few rare times when it'd actually be an instant-win, or less than 0.1% of situations that require being solved without insta-gibbing/face-murdering/utterly destroying a target. Which, let's be honest, rarely comes up.

Before the change, you have a situation in which few people take Invisible Spell for using it creatively; after the change, you have a situation in which nobody takes invisible spell. It gets relegated to the ranks of the Dodge chain - nice, but not worth it save for meeting prerequisites. And it gets pushed even further back because no prestige class requires invisible spell.

As a +0, yes, it can be too powerful in specific situations. As a +1, it's not even on par with most other +1s (double duration, etc), much less +2s, both of which can useful all the time. So, a weak +1, or powerful +0. That's the only choice you have: between "Yeah, this looks fun" and "Ehh... it might come in handy" instead of "Yeah, this looks fun" and "What? No. Not worth a feat".

It's not situational though - many invisible spells are completely undetectable to most characters, and thing like invisible Prismatic Walls can be used to end whole encounters easily. Invisible Spell as written is very overpowered. I would far prefer invisible to empower or extend for sheer power.

Originally Posted by Grumman

Good. Better that than the alternative other people are arguing for.

I'm afraid I don't follow.

Originally Posted by Mastikator

"Creatures or permanent effects cannot be made invisible in this way"

Therefore, you can make anyone permanently invisible.

But a +1 spell level is pretty reasonable imo, it's not at all overpowered, you can still hear the spell, and see its effects on its environment.

Re: [3.5] Making Invisible Spell less broken

Originally Posted by Myou

It's not situational though - many invisible spells are completely undetectable to most characters, and thing like invisible Prismatic Walls can be used to end whole encounters easily. Invisible Spell as written is very overpowered. I would far prefer invisible to empower or extend for sheer power.

That depends on how the DM in question plays the encounter. Most people (IE, anyone with INT greater than 3) would realize that something's up when their buddy steps through an apparently empty space and see that buddy burned, sprayed by acid, and vanished to who-knows-where. Also, at that point, Prismatic Wall is also blocking your friends from getting in, and blocking your line of effect. Which means, wa-hey, they get to run away and you have to wait for its duration to end before you can give chase.

Seriously, auto-ending encounters? If the DM plays the encounters like your opponents have INT - or 1-2.

Now if you don't mind, I am somewhat preoccupied telling the laws of physics to shut up and sit down.
I cast irresistable phantasmal killeras a 4th level spell. No save, just die.

Re: [3.5] Making Invisible Spell less broken

I do think that things like "Invisible Fog Cloud" are reasonable ways to hamper See Invis and True Seeing.

I would prefer "creatures able to see the invisible ignore the effects of this metamagic effect"

Thus, an 'invisible Silent image' would be treated as a normal 'Silent image' to someone with true seeing. They would then see through it.

That is how it works. Trueseer can see though a silent image even with this metamagic. But See Invisiblers can't.
True seeing can't see through Fog Cloud so Invisible becomes a great tool vs Trueseers (since everyone else can see through the Cloud).

Re: [3.5] Making Invisible Spell less broken

I don't even understand how a campaign benefits from this feat in general. Quite honestly, if your game does, I don't see why you would need to mess with it much. I'd suggest that the ability is too broadly worded, hides too much. It recreates most of the issues of 2ed invisibility, but now with even wilder implications. If you really want to fix it, I'd start by asking what exact spells you want invisible in your games, and see if you can put some restrictions upon it based on that, while still leaving it as +0.

But I'd trivially ban something that allows for an invisible fireball, to say nothing of the actually powerful uses of this spell. Even at its face value, used as intended, this is a wild feat.

Re: [3.5] Making Invisible Spell less broken

I thought I said all I wanted, but as a big fan of the prismatic effects, I'll say one more thing:

The implied flavor involves the colors actually being manifest, raw edges of reality brought out, separated, and working for the caster. Essentially, the colors are what damage you. Game mechanically, that's not what's going on- the brilliant flickering spectral colors could be dismissed as "fluff" or some such derisive term, and you've simply created a zone of save-or-die effects. My claim is that any feat or setup that allows for the prismatic effects without the colors being manifest is highly suspect from the perspective of how these things are supposed to work. I think that this kind of thinking is really encouraged by this feat, and that in my book is a big strike against it.

Re: [3.5] Making Invisible Spell less broken

Originally Posted by cfalcon

I thought I said all I wanted, but as a big fan of the prismatic effects, I'll say one more thing:

The implied flavor involves the colors actually being manifest, raw edges of reality brought out, separated, and working for the caster. Essentially, the colors are what damage you. Game mechanically, that's not what's going on- the brilliant flickering spectral colors could be dismissed as "fluff" or some such derisive term, and you've simply created a zone of save-or-die effects. My claim is that any feat or setup that allows for the prismatic effects without the colors being manifest is highly suspect from the perspective of how these things are supposed to work. I think that this kind of thinking is really encouraged by this feat, and that in my book is a big strike against it.

Re: [3.5] Making Invisible Spell less broken

Originally Posted by Starbuck_II

Wait, so you're against Invisible Colorspray as well?

Good grief of course I am, I'd never allow this feat at all! I mean, I'm pretty sure I can cast invisible colorspray IRL- I'm making colors, but you can't SEE them! WoooOOooo! I'm specced deep into Unfalsifiable Claims, you see. I also have Inaudible Shout and Invisible Nonthermal Fireball prepared today, as well as Invisible Imperceptible Wall Of Stone.

Re: [3.5] Making Invisible Spell less broken

Originally Posted by cfalcon

Good grief of course I am, I'd never allow this feat at all! I mean, I'm pretty sure I can cast invisible colorspray IRL- I'm making colors, but you can't SEE them! WoooOOooo! I'm specced deep into Unfalsifiable Claims, you see. I also have Inaudible Shout and Invisible Nonthermal Fireball prepared today, as well as Invisible Imperceptible Wall Of Stone.

I think that's far more insulting than anything I've said so far in this thread, and now I have to rectify that.

While, yes, you "make sense", you only make sense insofar as you believe that the flavor text put out for spells by Wizards of the Coast are the only way to interpret spells.

When, in fact, fluff is mutable. And yes, that's all ANYTHING named by WotC is: Fluff. Change the word "Prismatic" to "Shifting" or "Dazzling" or "Elemental" and the spell remains the same, only that the flavor of the mechanics change (from colors to warping the fabric of reality to shattering your mind to being pieces of elemental planes brought forth).

There's numerous references in the PHB and DMG that says renaming abilities/spells/etc is fine and dandy - which, if we're to go by your insipid interpretations, means that if WotC said it, then we can follow that rule blindly and rename everything in binary if we wanted to.

So, if your only argument against invisible spell is 'but they can't see the colors lol', please. Shut up, and take your insulting manner of speaking elsewhere.

Re: [3.5] Making Invisible Spell less broken

I think how the original version worked in fine with a few modifications.
1st: The visible effects of the spell end with the duration of the the modified spell.
An invisible fireball still works as an Instantaneous spell could still be invisible for an Instantaneous amount of time.
But wall of stone are raise dead fail, because their invisibility would end in an instant, the same duration as the spell.

2: Spells that are dependent on vision lose those effects if made invisible, so say a prismatic walls blinding effect is negated because you can't see the colors of the wall.
As would the concealment granted by fog-cloud as you can't see the cloud.

Re: [3.5] Making Invisible Spell less broken

I think that's far more insulting than anything I've said so far in this thread, and now I have to rectify that.

Stupendous! Am I speaking to the Invisible Spell Feat itself? Because if I am, then you sure should be insulted! But if I'm not speaking to the feat itself, you don't really have grounds for that!

While, yes, you "make sense", you only make sense insofar as you believe that the flavor text put out for spells by Wizards of the Coast are the only way to interpret spells.

Sure, but as I stated, when you start to lose that, you lose what the spells are, and you are just playing a bunch of mechanical "zones that have effects". Which is why I would ignore anything that does that.

When, in fact, fluff is mutable. And yes, that's all ANYTHING named by WotC is: Fluff. Change the word "Prismatic" to "Shifting" or "Dazzling" or "Elemental" and the spell remains the same, only that the flavor of the mechanics change (from colors to warping the fabric of reality to shattering your mind to being pieces of elemental planes brought forth).

Well, you could, but then it's not prismatic sphere. These things have history. The entire prismatic line of spells is from The Excellent Prismatic Spray, a spell from the Dying Earth setup by Jack Vance. That's not "fluff". That's inspiration. Why do you think that the AD&D prismatic effects have stuff based on each color? They used the color as the root to inspire the rest of the spell.

Many things have a mechanical effect that is assumed to be based on the physical effect. That is why they bothered to WRITE the mechanical effect to begin with. That's the direction of design. Allowing this feat encourages a scavenger hunt for spells like this- stuff where you take away the visible effect and the entire situation becomes bizzare and strange.

There's numerous references in the PHB and DMG that says renaming abilities/spells/etc is fine and dandy - which, if we're to go by your insipid interpretations, means that if WotC said it, then we can follow that rule blindly and rename everything in binary if we wanted to.

Well, first I'd like to see where it talks about renaming spells casually- the interaction with counterspelling and dispelling would need to be taken into account. It for sure says you should rename abilities to things appropriate for your character if need be, the big example I can remember being something of Lidda's being renamed (probably move silently). Nothing in my statements implies that these could be renamed to crazy things, for instance.

So, if your only argument against invisible spell is 'but they can't see the colors lol', please. Shut up, and take your insulting manner of speaking elsewhere.

Briefly, no, and here's an internet protip: telling someone to "shut up" is just as rude on the internet as IRL, but you are a hell of a lot less likely to meet with success.
The feat strikes me as wildly absurd and hilarious. It's like Causeless Effect done to ridiculousness. It strikes me as a comedic gag and quite honestly I suspect I could go on for several pages if I was motivated to. I gave good suggestions for putting limits on it if you desire the effects of the feat in your campaign without some of the more unbalancing effects, but I honestly suspect that any ability that pronouncedly delimits the in-game physical manifestation of effects from the game rules, lets you slice and dice them, then reorganize them, will encourage your players to think in terms of Game Mechanics Legos- you'll give them a world where they want to apply affects independently of causes, and are actively rewarded for doing so. I don't see, personally, how that will help a game- but each group does their own things. The intention of the spell was likely to allow for a stealthy spell, but I wouldn't even allow THAT because it's likely ripe for abuse. The implications of this feat are surreal, so any campaign that allows it should be prepared for surreal situations.

Re: [3.5] Making Invisible Spell less broken

Originally Posted by Lord Vukodlak

I think how the original version worked in fine with a few modifications.
1st: The visible effects of the spell end with the duration of the the modified spell.
An invisible fireball still works as an Instantaneous spell could still be invisible for an Instantaneous amount of time.
But wall of stone are raise dead fail, because their invisibility would end in an instant, the same duration as the spell.

2: Spells that are dependent on vision lose those effects if made invisible, so say a prismatic walls blinding effect is negated because you can't see the colors of the wall.
As would the concealment granted by fog-cloud as you can't see the cloud.

And of course a +1 or 2 adjustment.

The thing is, though, the massively nasty stuff is still there
1) Long-duration hazards are now much harder to avoid.
2) For the most part, the bit on an Invisible Spell Obscuring Mist wasn't about the invisible fog granting concealment... it was about negating the ability to See Invisible stuff - as when you turn on your See Invisibility, you're now subject to the invisible mist, and thus can't see.
3) The blind effect of standing near a Prismatic Wall is by far the least of the reasons it's useful with Invisible Spell - you now put a wall of doom between yourself and your opponent... and your opponent doesn't know about the wall of doom.

Re: [3.5] Making Invisible Spell less broken

Originally Posted by Jack_Simth

3) The blind effect of standing near a Prismatic Wall is by far the least of the reasons it's useful with Invisible Spell - you now put a wall of doom between yourself and your opponent... and your opponent doesn't know about the wall of doom.

One of the persistent problems with early invisibility was when you had an invisible light source. That was fixed with 3.0, but of course, this feat brings that back in spades.

Re: [3.5] Making Invisible Spell less broken

Originally Posted by Starbuck_II

That is how it works. Trueseer can see though a silent image even with this metamagic. But See Invisiblers can't.
True seeing can't see through Fog Cloud so Invisible becomes a great tool vs Trueseers (since everyone else can see through the Cloud).

No, it's not. As is, those under effects of true seeing see "the normal effect of the spell".

So an invisible illusion is a fully functional illusion. By the precise wording, Invisible spell defeats true seeing. If True Seeing merely ignores the effects of the feat, then True Seeing follows whatever interaction it would otherwise normally have with the spell.

In other words, that fix preserves the ability of the feat to defeat trueseers with effects that would normally defeat true-seeing, without allowing effects that would not ordinarily trump it to do so.

Such creatures are visible to you as translucent shapes, allowing you easily to discern the difference between visible, invisible, and ethereal creatures.

- See Invisibility (PHB pg 275)

How would seeing a translucent fog blind true seeing? Yes you can still SEE the fog, but it doesn't blind or even obscure your vision.

But the invisible spell description says "Those with... or true seeing spells... at the time of casting will see whatever visual manifestations typically accompany the spell." Yes, yes they will, as a translucent shape. But it doesn't say as a translucent shape! Your right it doesn't say HOW the person with true seeing will see them, thats up to your DM.

Always attack a manís strengths, No one ever expects you to attack the strongest part of the fort. Up the middle thatís where the action is. And itís the same in life. Donít run away, attack them head on as their coming at you at full speed. Because that my friend is living.

Re: [3.5] Making Invisible Spell less broken

How would seeing a translucent fog blind true seeing? Yes you can still SEE the fog, but it doesn't blind or even obscure your vision.

But the invisible spell description says "Those with... or true seeing spells... at the time of casting will see whatever visual manifestations typically accompany the spell." Yes, yes they will, as a translucent shape. But it doesn't say as a translucent shape! Your right it doesn't say HOW the person with true seeing will see them, thats up to your DM.

The issue is: That doesn't matter.

The wording of Invisible spell explicitly calls out these functions. If you can see invisibility, you instead see the normal effects of the spell (note: It does not say that you see the effects that you normally would. You see the normal effects. Thus, the normal effects of the Invisibility spell are: the person is not detectable by sight. Now, True Seeing gets that, rather than its normal effect, when you cast "Invisible Invisibility".) This is a specific case when the functioning of the spell is altered in a specific instance.

Re: [3.5] Making Invisible Spell less broken

Originally Posted by PhoenixRivers

The issue is: That doesn't matter.

The wording of Invisible spell explicitly calls out these functions. If you can see invisibility, you instead see the normal effects of the spell (note: It does not say that you see the effects that you normally would. You see the normal effects. Thus, the normal effects of the Invisibility spell are: the person is not detectable by sight. Now, True Seeing gets that, rather than its normal effect, when you cast "Invisible Invisibility".) This is a specific case when the functioning of the spell is altered in a specific instance.

The problem I have with it is when the caster uses effects that block line of sight, blinding whoever is caught up in them while everyone outside can still freely attack creatures within.